Jump to content



Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Marshall said:

What about the various politicians that held similar feelings and expressed them in the past, do we take down their statues, remove their pictures etc ?

Yup,  they could start with removing any and all imagery or representation of Obama for his support of the Defence of Marriage Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are only allowed to speak your mind, or express your opinion if it is in agreement with the lefties.

New ideas, and rational thought are not welcome.

Not exactly what I would call free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHOP shooting in Seattle autonomous zone kills man and critically wounds boy

By Konstantin Toropin, CNN  1 hr ago


CNN logoCHOP shooting in Seattle autonomous zone kills man and critically wounds boy

A shooting in Seattle's Capitol Hill Occupation Protest (CHOP) area Monday morning left one man dead and a 14-year-old boy critically injured -- bringing more scrutiny to the autonomous protest zone.


"When investigators arrived, they found a white Jeep Cherokee riddled with bullet holes on 12th Avenue," Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best said, according to CNN affiliate KIRO.

"We were told that there were two men inside the vehicle, and both had been shot."

The two occupants were taken to Harborview Medical Center in critical condition between 3:15 and 3:30 a.m. (6:15 and 6:30 a.m. ET), hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg told CNN.

The man later died, and the 14-year-old boy remains in critical condition, the hospital said.

Monday's attack is the fifth shooting within two weeks in the CHOP area, and the second to turn fatal.

Thousands of protesters have occupied the area, a four- to six-block section of Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, since June 8 in an effort to demand police reform following the death of George Floyd.

But CNN has observed that the number of people within the CHOP area has decreased significantly over the past week.

The police chief said violence in the autonomous zone "is a real problem" and said she questions "why would we continue to allow this to happen."

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's administration has been cautious about moving back into the protest zone. Friday, a spokeswoman for the mayor told CNN it's possible the CHOP area "could last a few more weeks."

The drawn-out approach has brought criticism from both local and national leaders -- including President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly tweeted about the CHOP area.

The police chief said it's time for people to leave the autonomous protest zone.

"There are multiple people who are being injured and hurt, and we need to do something about it," Best said.

"We're asking the people remove themselves from this area for the safety of the people," she said. " It is absolutely irresponsible for this trend to continue."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the fifth shooting in a four block area controlled and administered by people who want to abolish the police. That's a little over one per block in a 2 week period (or so). If we were to project ahead over the course of a year, you could expect about 28 shootings per block at this rate. 

Take a moment and ponder the size of the area.... then consider the level of stupidity it takes to think they are managing it so successfully that anything they suggest is worthy of the slightest consideration. 

My advice is to take what ever they advocate for and do the exact opposite.


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say this (as I am not exactly a fan )?  but Justin appears to have made a good choice, I   hope she fares better than the other Women Justin appointed.  


Lakhani was born in Uganda and has an honours degree in clinical biochemistry from the University of Manchester.

She has been in Edmonton for more than 40 years, owning and operating an early childhood education centre.

In 2005, she was awarded the Alberta Centennial Medal for outstanding achievements in the province. And in 2012, she was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal honouring service to Canada.

Alberta businesswoman named lieutenant-governor, first Muslim in role in Canada


Posted Jun 30, 2020 12:09 pm MDT


Last Updated Jun 30, 2020 at 12:10 pm MDT

Salma Lakhani has been named the first Muslim lieutenant-governor in Canada as she will soon take the role in Alberta. (CREDIT: @NorQuest, Twitter)

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has named business owner and philanthropist Salma Lakhani as Alberta’s new lieutenant-governor.

When she formally takes over the role, Lakhani will become Canada’s first Muslim lieutenant-governor.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces the appointment of Salma Lakhani as the new Lieutenant Governor of Alberta: https://t.co/Y9No0UJI82

— CanadianPM (@CanadianPM) June 30, 2020


She replaces Lois Mitchell as the Queen’s representative in the province.

Lakhani has been long recognized for her work and philanthropy in a range of fields, including health care and human rights.

She has mentored young students with English as a second language and helped steer a committee dedicated to helping vulnerable women gain access to education.

Lakhani was born in Uganda and has an honours degree in clinical biochemistry from the University of Manchester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, y'all had to fix your hair, put on makeup, find the perfect backdrop, take your shirt off, get out the phone, take the picture, go to the site, sign in, select photos, choose the topless one, select the photo for upload..... and then, AND THEN press the POST button. The opportunities to avoid stupid are as numerous as they are varied.

Stop being sorry and simply content yourself with being stupid.... and please do it quietly. In which galaxy does a topless picture provide comfort to a grieving family or hasten the investigative process?

Lili Reinhart 'truly sorry' for topless pic used to draw attention to woman's killing

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the hype from the Liberals that legal pot would down the illegal market, well  .....

Niagara police bust $34M illegal cannabis operation, arrest 11 people

By Rick Zamperin 900 CHML
Posted July 1, 2020 9:45 am
Police officers seized 17,200 marijuana plants from a facility in St. Catharines.
Police officers seized 17,200 marijuana plants from a facility in St. Catharines. Niagara Regional Police

Niagara Regional Police have busted a massive illegal marijuana grow operation in St. Catharines.

Officers seized $34 million worth of cannabis around 10:30 a.m. Tuesday and arrested 11 people who were allegedly tending to approximately 17,200 pot plants at a facility in the area of Third and Main streets.

One person from St. Catharines, several from Scarborough and Markham, Ont., and a resident of New York have been charged with unauthorized production of cannabis.

Media Release – 11 People Arrested in Relation to Drug Investigation in St. Catharines https://t.co/nXzjUmJimJ pic.twitter.com/q1nCSNwvOI

— NRPS (@NiagRegPolice) July 1, 2020



Officers with the Guns, Gangs and Grows Unit and the Opioid Enforcement Unit say they launched their investigation in May after receiving complaints from the public.


Niagara police say this is the largest marijuana grow operation they’ve ever investigated.

1:35Aurora Cannabis downsizing part of ‘right-sizing’ industry: analyst

Aurora Cannabis downsizing part of ‘right-sizing’ industry: analyst

All but one of the accused have been released from police custody and are scheduled to make a court appearance in St. Catharines on Sept. 4.

One suspect that has not been identified has a video bail hearing on Wednesday.

Police say illegal operations such as these pose several concerns and potential issues for the community and nearby residents,  including offensive odour and the potential for violence.


New record: More than 4 tonnes of marijuana allegedly seized at Canada-U.S. border

Ryan Flanagan

Ryan FlanaganCTVNews.ca Writer

@flanaganryan Contact

Published Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:47PM EDT

TORONTO -- American authorities say they have made the biggest seizure of marijuana at the Canadian border on record.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says nearly 4.3 tonnes of marijuana, which they estimate as having a street value of US$20 million (CAD$27.3 million), was seized June 25 from a truck that was trying to enter the country.

According to the border agency, the truck was stopped while crossing the Peace Bridge between Ontario's Niagara Region and Buffalo, N.Y.

The truck's manifest document said it was carrying only storage containers, but an inspection allegedly turned up 55 wooden pallet boxes containing vacuum-sealed packages of marijuana.

A 26-year-old man from India, who authorities said is also a Canadian permanent resident, has been charged with importing marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute it.

The U.S. border agency calls the discovery "the largest narcotics seizure recorded on the northern border."

It is the third major marijuana seizure at the Peace Bridge this month. Border officials allege that a truck stopped on June 13 that was supposedly carrying 58 boxes of peat moss was actually attempting to haul 1.5 tonnes of marijuana into the U.S., and more than 800 kilograms of marijuana were seized from a third truck on June 5.

Customs and Border Patrol says it has seized far more marijuana and other drugs since March than it did during the same time period last year, even though the border has been closed to non-essential traffic due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marshall said:

Remember the hype from the Liberals that legal pot would down the illegal market, well  .....


Remember that same hype right here on the forum?

If y'all want to smoke it and you want it legal, just say so.... it's that easy. No need to snow the snow queen with stuff a child could see through. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Airband said:

I am surprised that has not been taken off the air.  I like it but.... lots of dumb things happening now ,  here is yet another example of correctness running amuck.


Petition calls on Whitehorse to remove Jack London sculpture citing racism

Organizer cites themes of xenophobia, racism, ableism in works of famed Klondike novelist

CBC News · Posted: Jul 01, 2020 7:00 AM CT | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

Calls are being renewed internationally to remove statues of historic figures with problematic and racist pasts, and Yukon is not exempt.

In Whitehorse, there's a request for the city to remove the bust sculpture of the famed Klondike novelist Jack London. There are also calls to create a democratic committee of diverse stakeholders to actively review all current statues and landmark names in the city, as well as any that will be put up moving forward.


Abdeer Ahmad started an online petition asking Whitehorse city council to remove the bust of London from Main Street downtown.

The bust is found at the corner of Main Street and Fourth Avenue. (Wayne Vallevand/CBC)

Ahmad said there are themes of xenophobia, racism and ableism in London's well-known works of literature.

"As a writer, London actively wrote about the inferiority of people of colour and advocated for eugenic ideas," she said.

Ahmad referenced London's story The Unparalleled Invasion, in which she said London references Asian immigration as the "yellow peril," while also emphasizing the value of biological warfare and genocide against Chinese people as necessary to upholding white civilization.

In other works, she said people of colour are "often characterized into groups likened to savages, animals, and spoken about as a subhuman species."

Ahmad said part of the problem is that not many people know about London's history.

"When we put people on a pedestal … we perpetuate this idea of these individuals as being idealistic and we endorse these values inadvertently."

For example, Ahmad said London's statue only draws attention to his trip to Yukon and how his work brought attention to the North. But she said it doesn't mention how his work "contributed to the perpetuation of racist, colonial narratives."

"Statues provide a very biased form of history, one that only discusses the contributions of individuals to white society, but never their impact on other diverse peoples," she said.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

OK, y'all had to fix your hair, put on makeup, find the perfect backdrop, take your shirt off, get out the phone, take the picture, go to the site, sign in, select photos, choose the topless one, select the photo for upload..... and then, AND THEN press the POST button. The opportunities to avoid stupid are as numerous as they are varied.

Here's a link to the tweet/post; https://twitter.com/intothecrevasse/status/1277699281890222080

It was done intentionally.

Best look quick before it gets deleted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Published 41 mins ago

McEnany: 'Seattle has been liberated from the anarchists'

White House press secretary called CHOP a "failed four-week Democrat experiment"

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, in a Wednesday press briefing, celebrated Seattle’s dismantling of the Capital Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), saying the city has been “liberated from the anarchists.”

“We are pleased to report law and order has prevailed and Seattle has been liberated from the anarchists,” McEnany said, calling CHOP, a zone declared “police free” by protesters, a “failed four-week Democrat experiment.”

The press secretary said that the Black House Autonomous Zone (BHAZ), which tried to organize across from the White House was “swiftly dismantled,” adding that over 300 people had been arrested for rioting and destruction of federal property, and there were over 200 domestic terrorism investigations.


Seattle police ordered protesters in the CHOP zone to disperse around 5 a.m. Wednesday, giving them an eight-minute warning. At least 31 protesters were arrested for failure to disperse, obstruction, resisting arrest and assault, police said.

Mayor Jenny Durkan declared the gathering unlawful assembly after two fatal shootings. There were at least four shootings in the zone, which left a 16-year-old and 19-year-old dead in separate incidents.

Officers retook their East Precinct stationhouse, which police had abandoned last month following clashes with protesters.

“Our job is to support peaceful demonstration but what has happened on these streets over the last few weeks is lawless and it’s brutal and bottom line it is simply unacceptable,” Police Chief Carmen Best told reporters.

Police also investigated several vehicles circling the CHOP zone after officers saw people inside them carrying firearms and wearing body armor. The vehicles had no visible license plates, police said.

Durkan’s executive order comes after a series of late-night shootings in the area killed two teenagers and seriously wounded three other people. Police said other violent crimes have been documented in the area since demonstrators took over several blocks in the Capitol Hill neighborhood last month.

“Officers enforcing today's order are wearing a higher-level of protective gear,” police said. “Police are utilizing this equipment because individuals associated w/the CHOP are known to be armed and dangerous/may be associated with shootings, homicides, robberies, assaults & other violent crimes.”

Best said that while she supports peaceful demonstrations, “enough is enough.”

Earlier this month, President Trump said the city “must end this Seattle takeover now!”


“Seattle is fine. Don’t be so afraid of Democracy,” Durkan shot back.

Republicans welcomed Durkan switching course, but said she had done so too late.

“21 days and several deaths too late,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted. “The rule of law must not fade in and out with the fashions of the radical left.”


Fox News' Stephen Sorace contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eluded to in another post but stands as an early pick for headline of the day.... this one can't be beat simply because it illustrates the level to which the descent has taken us in a short period of time. If the Romans had internet, they could have hastened the effects as well.

Imagine having to justify why you stood for the anthem in the national media. The fact this is headline news is what should actually be the headline news. When madness masquerades as a navigator, the wreckage is never found.

NWSL's Rachel Hill explains decision to stand for anthem as teammates knelt, cites military family

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if US voters are getting tired of hearing Demonrats scream about Russia.

The House intelligence Committee has access to all of the security/intelligence briefings which means Nancy and all the boys doing the screaming knew too (or had a duty to know).

They seem to think everyone is an idiot and that the law of logical absurdity doesn't apply to them. My original question has gone unanswered, what would Democrats have done? If this is all true, we already know what they didn't do.... I'd like to know why they didn't know and if it's because they were too busy running the impeachment scam then they should be jailed IMO.  


White House was warned about potential Russian bounties for killing US troops in early 2019

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes from the top...


The Coronavirus Was an Emergency Until Trump Found Out Who Was Dying

The pandemic has exposed the bitter terms of our racial contract, which deems certain lives of greater value than others.

pdated at 12:25 p.m. ET on May 9, 2020.

Six weeks ago, Ahmaud Arbery went out and never came home. Gregory and Travis McMichael, who saw Arbery running through their neighborhood just outside of Brunswick, Georgia, and who told authorities they thought he was a burglary suspect, armed themselves, pursued Arbery, and then shot him dead.

The local prosecutor, George E. Barnhill, concluded that no crime had been committed. Arbery had tried to wrest a shotgun from Travis McMichael before being shot, Barnhill wrote in a letter to the police chief. The two men who had seen a stranger running, and decided to pick up their firearms and chase him, had therefore acted in self-defense when they confronted and shot him, Barnhill concluded. On Tuesday, as video of the shooting emerged on social media, a different Georgia prosecutor announced that the case would be put to a grand jury; the two men were arrested and charged with murder yesterday evening after video of the incident sparked national outrage across the political spectrum.

To see the sequence of events that led to Arbery’s death as benign requires a cascade of assumptions. One must assume that two men arming themselves and chasing down a stranger running through their neighborhood is a normal occurrence. One must assume that the two armed white men had a right to self-defense, and that the black man suddenly confronted by armed strangers did not. One must assume that state laws are meant to justify an encounter in which two people can decide of their own volition to chase, confront, and kill a person they’ve never met.

Ibram X. Kendi: Ahmaud Arbery could have been me

But Barnhill’s leniency is selective—as The Appeal’s Josie Duffy Rice notes, Barnhill attempted to prosecute Olivia Pearson, a black woman, for helping another black voter use an electronic voting machine. A crime does not occur when white men stalk and kill a black stranger. A crime does occur when black people vote.

The underlying assumptions of white innocence and black guilt are all part of what the philosopher Charles Mills calls the “racial contract.” If the social contract is the implicit agreement among members of a society to follow the rules—for example, acting lawfully, adhering to the results of elections, and contesting the agreed-upon rules by nonviolent means—then the racial contract is a codicil rendered in invisible ink, one stating that the rules as written do not apply to nonwhite people in the same way. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal; the racial contract limits this to white men with property. The law says murder is illegal; the racial contract says it’s fine for white people to chase and murder black people if they have decided that those black people scare them. “The terms of the Racial Contract,” Mills wrote, “mean that nonwhite subpersonhood is enshrined simultaneously with white personhood.”

The racial contract is not partisan—it guides staunch conservatives and sensitive liberals alike—but it works most effectively when it remains imperceptible to its beneficiaries. As long as it is invisible, members of society can proceed as though the provisions of the social contract apply equally to everyone. But when an injustice pushes the racial contract into the open, it forces people to choose whether to embrace, contest, or deny its existence. Video evidence of unjustified shootings of black people is so jarring in part because it exposes the terms of the racial contract so vividly. But as the process in the Arbery case shows, the racial contract most often operates unnoticed, relying on Americans to have an implicit understanding of who is bound by the rules, and who is exempt from them.

The implied terms of the racial contract are visible everywhere for those willing to see them. A 12-year-old with a toy gun is a dangerous threat who must be met with lethal force; armed militias drawing beads on federal agents are heroes of liberty. Struggling white farmers in Iowa taking billions in federal assistance are hardworking Americans down on their luck; struggling single parents in cities using food stamps are welfare queens. Black Americans struggling in the cocaine epidemic are a “bio-underclass” created by a pathological culture; white Americans struggling with opioid addiction are a national tragedy. Poor European immigrants who flocked to an America with virtually no immigration restrictions came “the right way”; poor Central American immigrants evading a baroque and unforgiving system are gang members and terrorists.

The coronavirus epidemic has rendered the racial contract visible in multiple ways. Once the disproportionate impact of the epidemic was revealed to the American political and financial elite, many began to regard the rising death toll less as a national emergency than as an inconvenience. Temporary measures meant to prevent the spread of the disease by restricting movement, mandating the wearing of masks, or barring large social gatherings have become the foulest tyranny. The lives of workers at the front lines of the pandemic—such as meatpackers, transportation workers, and grocery clerks—have been deemed so worthless that legislators want to immunize their employers from liability even as they force them to work under unsafe conditions. In East New York, police assault black residents for violating social-distancing rules; in Lower Manhattan, they dole out masks and smiles to white pedestrians.

Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign, with its vows to enforce state violence against Mexican immigrants, Muslims, and black Americans, was built on a promise to enforce terms of the racial contract that Barack Obama had ostensibly neglected, or violated by his presence. Trump’s administration, in carrying out an explicitly discriminatory agenda that valorizes cruelty, war crimes, and the entrenchment of white political power, represents a revitalized commitment to the racial contract.

Adam Serwer: White nationalism’s deep American roots

But the pandemic has introduced a new clause to the racial contract. The lives of disproportionately black and brown workers are being sacrificed to fuel the engine of a faltering economy, by a president who disdains them. This is the COVID contract.

As the first cases of the coronavirus were diagnosed in the United States, in late January and early February, the Trump administration and Fox News were eager to play down the risk it posed. But those early cases, tied to international travel, ensnared many members of the global elite: American celebrities, world leaders, and those with close ties to Trump himself. By March 16, the president had reversed course, declaring a national emergency and asking Americans to avoid social gatherings.

The purpose of the restrictions was to flatten the curve of infections, to keep the spread of the virus from overwhelming the nation’s medical infrastructure, and to allow the federal government time to build a system of testing and tracing that could contain the outbreak. Although testing capacity is improving, the president has very publicly resisted investing the necessary resources, because testing would reveal more infections; in his words, “by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad.”

Over the weeks that followed the declaration of an emergency, the pandemic worsened and the death toll mounted. Yet by mid-April, conservative broadcasters were decrying the restrictions, small bands of armed protesters were descending on state capitols, and the president was pressing to lift the constraints.

In the interim, data about the demographics of COVID-19 victims began to trickle out. On April 7, major outlets began reporting that preliminary data showed that black and Latino Americans were being disproportionately felled by the coronavirus. That afternoon, Rush Limbaugh complained, “If you dare criticize the mobilization to deal with this, you’re going to be immediately tagged as a racist.” That night, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced, “It hasn’t been the disaster that we feared.” His colleague Brit Hume mused that “the disease turned out not to be quite as dangerous as we thought.” The nationwide death toll that day was just 13,000 people; it now stands above 70,000, a mere month later.

As Matt Gertz writes, some of these premature celebrations may have been an overreaction to the changes in the prominent coronavirus model designed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, which had recently revised its estimates down to about 60,000 deaths by August. But even as the mounting death toll proved that estimate wildly optimistic, the chorus of right-wing elites demanding that the economy reopen grew louder. By April 16, the day the first anti-lockdown protests began, deaths had more than doubled, to more than 30,000.

That more and more Americans were dying was less important than who was dying.

The disease is now “infecting people who cannot afford to miss work or telecommute—grocery store employees, delivery drivers and construction workers,” The Washington Post reported. Air travel has largely shut down, and many of the new clusters are in nursing homes, jails and prisons, and factories tied to essential industries. Containing the outbreak was no longer a question of social responsibility, but of personal responsibility. From the White House podium, Surgeon General Jerome Adams told “communities of color” that “we need you to step up and help stop the spread.”

Public-health restrictions designed to contain the outbreak were deemed absurd. They seemed, in Carlson’s words, “mindless and authoritarian,” a “weird kind of arbitrary fascism.” To restrict the freedom of white Americans, just because nonwhite Americans are dying, is an egregious violation of the racial contract. The wealthy luminaries of conservative media have sought to couch their opposition to restrictions as advocacy on behalf of workers, but polling shows that those most vulnerable to both the disease and economic catastrophe want the outbreak contained before they return to work.  

Read: What the ‘liberate’ protests really mean for Republicans

Although the full picture remains unclear, researchers have found that disproportionately black counties “account for more than half of coronavirus cases and nearly 60 percent of deaths.”* The disproportionate burden that black and Latino Americans are bearing is in part a direct result of their overrepresentation in professions where they risk exposure, and of a racial gap in wealth and income that has left them more vulnerable to being laid off. Black and Latino workers are overrepresented among the essential, the unemployed, and the dead.

This is a very old and recognizable story—political and financial elites displaying a callous disregard for the workers of any race who make their lives of comfort possible. But in America, where labor and race are so often intertwined, the racial contract has enabled the wealthy to dismiss workers as both undeserving and expendable. White Americans are also suffering, but the perception that the coronavirus is largely a black and brown problem licenses elites to dismiss its impact. In America, the racial contract has shaped the terms of class war for centuries; the COVID contract shapes it here.

This tangled dynamic played out on Tuesday, during oral arguments over Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s statewide stay-at-home order before the state Supreme Court, held remotely. Chief Justice Patience Roggensack was listening to Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth defend the order.

“When you see a virus like this one that does not respect county boundaries, this started out predominantly in Madison and Milwaukee; then we just had this outbreak in Brown County very recently in the meatpacking plants,” Roth explained. “The cases in Brown County in a span of two weeks surged over tenfold, from 60 to almost 800—”

“Due to the meatpacking, though, that’s where Brown County got the flare,” Roggensack interrupted to clarify. “It wasn’t just the regular folks in Brown County.”

Perhaps Roggensack did not mean that the largely Latino workers in Brown County’s meatpacking plants—who have told reporters that they have been forced to work in proximity with one another, often without masks or hand sanitizer, and without being notified that their colleagues are infected—are not “regular folks” like the other residents of the state. Perhaps she merely meant that their line of work puts them at greater risk, and so the outbreaks in the meatpacking plants, seen as essential to the nation’s food supply, are not rationally related to the governor’s stay-at-home order, from which they would be exempt.

Eric Schlosser: The essentials

Yet either way, Roggensack was drawing a line between “regular folks” and the workers who keep them fed, mobile, safe, and connected. And America’s leaders have treated those workers as largely expendable, praising their valor while disregarding their safety.

“There were no masks. There was no distancing inside the plant, only [in the] break room. We worked really close to each other,” Raquel Sanchez Alvarado, a worker with American Foods, a Wisconsin meatpacking company, told local reporters in mid-April. “People are scared that they will be fired and that they will not find a job at another company if they express their concerns.”

In Colorado, hundreds of workers in meatpacking plants have contracted the coronavirus. In South Dakota, where a Smithfield plant became the site of an outbreak infecting more than 700 workers, a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the issue was their “large immigrant population.” On Tuesday, when Iowa reported that thousands of workers at meat-processing plants had become infected, Governor Kim Reynolds was bragging in The Washington Post about how well her approach to the coronavirus had worked.  

Although, by the official tally, more than 70,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus, many governors are rushing to reopen their states without sufficient testing to contain their outbreaks. (Statistical analyses of excess deaths in comparison with years past suggest that COVID-19 casualties are approaching and may soon exceed 100,000.) Yet the Trump administration is poised to declare “mission accomplished,” engaging in the doublespeak of treating the pandemic as though the major risks have passed, while rhetorically preparing the country for thousands more deaths. The worst-case scenarios may not come to pass. But federal policy reflects the president’s belief that he has little to lose by gambling with the lives of those Americans most likely to be affected.

“We can’t keep our country closed down for years,” Trump said Wednesday. But that was no one’s plan. The plan was to buy time to take the necessary steps to open the country safely. But the Trump administration did not do that, because it did not consider the lives of the people dying worth the effort or money required to save them.

The economic devastation wrought by the pandemic, and the Trump administration’s failure to prepare for it even as it crippled the world’s richest nations, cannot be overstated. Tens of millions of Americans are unemployed. Tens of thousands line up outside food banks and food pantries each week to obtain sustenance they cannot pay for. Businesses across the country are struggling and failing. The economy cannot be held in stasis indefinitely—the longer it is, the more people will suffer.

Annie Lowrey: The small business die-off is here

Yet the only tension between stopping the virus and reviving the economy is one the Trump administration and its propaganda apparatus have invented. Economists are in near-unanimous agreement that the safest path requires building the capacity to contain the virus before reopening the economy—precisely because new waves of deaths will drive Americans back into self-imposed isolation, destroying the consumer spending that powers economic growth. The federal government can afford the necessary health infrastructure and financial aid; it already shelled out hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to wealthy Americans. But the people in charge do not consider doing so to be worthwhile—Republicans have already dismissed aid to struggling state governments that laid off a million workers this month alone as a “blue-state bailout,” while pushing for more tax cuts for the rich.  

“The people of our country are warriors,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. “I’m not saying anything is perfect, and will some people be affected? Yes. Will some people be affected badly? Yes. But we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon.”

The frame of war allows the president to call for the collective sacrifice of laborers without taking the measures necessary to ensure their safety, while the upper classes remain secure at home. But the workers who signed up to harvest food, deliver packages, stack groceries, drive trains and buses, and care for the sick did not sign up for war, and the unwillingness of America’s political leadership to protect them is a policy decision, not an inevitability. Trump is acting in accordance with the terms of the racial contract, which values the lives of those most likely to be affected less than the inconveniences necessary to preserve them. The president’s language of wartime unity is a veil draped over a federal response that offers little more than contempt for those whose lives are at risk. To this administration, they are simply fuel to keep the glorious Trump economy burning.

Collective solidarity in response to the coronavirus remains largely intact—most Americans support the restrictions and are not eager to sacrifice their lives or those of their loved ones for a few points of gross domestic product. The consistency across incomes and backgrounds is striking in an era of severe partisan polarization. But solidarity with the rest of the nation among elite Republicans—those whose lives and self-conceptions are intertwined with the success of the Trump presidency—began eroding as soon as the disproportionate impact of the outbreak started to emerge.

The president’s cavalier attitude is at least in part a reflection of his fear that the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus will doom his political fortunes in November. But what connects the rise of the anti-lockdown protests, the president’s dismissal of the carnage predicted by his own administration, and the eagerness of governors all over the country to reopen the economy before developing the capacity to do so safely is the sense that those they consider “regular folks” will be fine.

Many of them will be. People like Ahmaud Arbery, whose lives are depreciated by the terms of the racial contract, will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from Pelosi. Ask yourself who it is running the con here?

The White House has done a con, saying that because all of the agencies of intelligence have not signed off on this, it wasn’t worthy of the president’s attention,” Pelosi said on MSNBC. “You know the death of our young people in Afghanistan or any place is worthy of the president’s attention."

If this information was available to the POTUS through intelligence circles, there is virtually no question that she had access to it as did the Democratically controlled House Intelligence Committee.

I can't understand why no one is pointing this out. The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. For anyone with a clue, this is an admission of their own culpability in not doing whatever it is they won't say the president should have done. If they say they didn't know (assuming it's true) they are guilty of the same dereliction of duty they accuse others of. And if the NY Times made it all up, then they're liars. There is not a single possibility here that (in my world) doesn't make them look worse than Trump.

Now, let's just say the Russians were directly funding the $10 Taliban (I have no clue about this BTW).... I want to know what Pelosi would have done about it. Or what she thinks the WH should have done about it, I'll even settle for any liberal minded person here suggesting what they would have done about it. 

Watch.... there will be no answer because that answer is in the same package as the opinion on which sectors of the economy should be shut down to hit Paris Accord targets. 



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question, with references, it is the White House that passes the intelligence briefings to the House Intelligence Committee. 

So if they don't get the information, they can't action it. 

And do you think that the White House had sent it to Pelosi?


Members of Congress cannot monitor the Intelligence Community (IC) without access to information about important and ongoing intelligence activities. In most cases, Congress will have no knowledge of intelligence operations without some level of cooperation with the executive branch. Over the past several decades, the executive and legislative branches have struggled to find the appropriate level of information that should be available to Congress.

This memo provides an overview of the President's obligation to inform Congress of significant intelligence activities—a duty that has taken on renewed importance in light of significant post-9/11 intelligence programs.

Historical Overview

Since the founding of the United States, Congress has long provided oversight of national security and intelligence issues. Examples of this type of oversight include:

  • Investigations following the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor during WWII.
  • Hearings on Vietnam-era domestic surveillance programs.
  • Investigations of pre-war intelligence reports on Iraq's weapons programs.

When Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947—the law that serves as the cornerstone of the modern-day national security apparatus—systematic oversight of the newly reorganized IC was not a priority. After World War II, however, Congress gradually replaced sporadic and ad-hoc investigations with a more regular, organized, and active system of oversight.

Congress eventually formed modern oversight committees, expanded them in the 1970s, and gradually increased their resources. Modernization of oversight mechanisms also resulted in more formal reporting requirements for the executive branch:

  • Spurred in large part by the Watergate scandal, Congress in 1974 passed the Hughes-Ryan Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, requiring the President to describe covert activity to the relevant committees in a timely fashion prior to authorization of funds.
  • In 1980, Congress passed the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 which amended the Hughes-Ryan Amendment. This Act streamlined IC reporting responsibilities to two committees, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).

Current Reporting Requirements

The ability of Congress to oversee the intelligence activities of the executive branch is limited by the access that members of the oversight committees have to information about ongoing operations and current intelligence assessments. In an effort to compel the executive branch to provide Congress with information about intelligence activities, Congress adopted in the 1991 Intelligence Authorization bill the modern statutory language that exists today:

"The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity..."

When crafting the phrase "fully and currently informed," Congress looked to language used in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Congress now interprets this phrase to mean that the IC should affirmatively and proactively report complete, timely, and detailed accounts of intelligence activities.

Covert Action Reporting Requirements

When the President determines that covert action represents the best option for advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives, the law requires him to authorize the covert action through a document called a presidential finding. A written finding must be issued within 48 hours after the official policy decision.

  • Congress expects that the IC to brief all covert action findings to the full membership of the intelligence oversight committees because they represent significant intelligence activities. Furthermore, the National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to report a finding to the intelligence committees "as soon as possible after... approval and before initiation" of the activities.

Extraordinary Circumstances and the Gang of Eight

According to the National Security Act of 1947, the President can limit reporting on significant intelligence activities to a small, select group of members of Congress in "extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests" of the United States. This select group of legislators is nicknamed the "Gang of Eight," and typically includes:

  • The House and Senate leaders from both parties.
  • The Chair and ranking members of both House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

The law does not explicitly define "extraordinary circumstances." Nevertheless, Congress intended that the Gang of Eight exception would apply only to specific time-sensitive covert actions, and not all intelligence activities. When passing the 1991 legislation, lawmakers noted that "this provision [should] be utilized when the President is faced with a covert action of such extraordinary sensitivity or risk to life that knowledge of the covert action should be restricted to as few individuals as possible."

If the President finds there are "extraordinary circumstances" and does not immediately inform the committee or the Gang of Eight about the covert action, then the President must still eventually report the activity to the Congress in a "timely fashion" and explain the delay.

  • Congress and the White House have disagreed on the meaning of the requirement for reporting in a "timely fashion." Congress generally interprets the requirement as two days, but past Presidents have withheld information for a longer period. This has led to friction between the two branches in the past.

Case Study: The NSA Warrantless Surveillance Controversy

Conflict over presidential reporting obligations, congressional oversight and interpretation of statute surfaced during the recent debate about electronic surveillance. In December 2005, President Bush publicly announced he had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly monitor electronic communications without court-issued warrants. The NSA reportedly intercepted the communications of individuals the NSA believed had links to terrorist groups, even if the communication originated, passed through or terminated within the U.S. In the past, collection of these types of communications required a warrant obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The Bush Administration maintained that it fulfilled congressional reporting obligations on the program because:

  • The White House briefed the Gang of Eight more than twelve times, affording these members the opportunity to voice opinions or concerns about the program.
  • According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) only has to inform Congress "[t]o the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters."
  • It was "common practice" for the White House to inform only the committee chair and ranking member or the "Gang of Eight" for activities similar to the surveillance program.

Members of Congress who wanted full briefings on the NSA program argued that the warrantless surveillance program was not a covert action. Hence, the program did not qualify for limited briefings to the Gang of Eight under the "extraordinary circumstances" exception.

From some lawmakers' perspectives, the administration offered few legitimate reasons for limiting briefings on the program to the Gang of Eight. Furthermore:

  • Some members of the Gang of Eight disagreed with the Administration's assertion that they had been given an opportunity to voice their opinion or to disapprove the program.
  • Some Bush Administration critics argued that the limited briefings were a deliberate attempt to impede active and effective oversight since the Gang of Eight could not discuss the complex program with legal and technical experts on their staffs.
  • The lack of congressional oversight may have harmed the perceived legitimacy of the program.



1991 Intelligence Authorization Act (P.L. 102-88).

Bazan, Elizabeth B. and Jennifer K. Elsea, "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information." Congressional Research Service. 5 January 2006.

"Covert Action: Legislative Background and Possible Policy Questions." Congressional Research Service, 28 January 2008.

Lowenthal, Mark. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 2nd Edition. CQ Press: Washington DC, 2003.

President George W. Bush Radio Address, Dec. 17 2005.

Rindskopf, Elizabeth R. Intelligence Oversight in a Democracy, 11 Hous. J. Int'l L. 30 (1988-1989).

Reid, Edwina Clare. Congressional Intelligence Oversight: Evolution in Progress, 1947 – 2005, Thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School, September 2005.

"Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions." Congressional Research Service, 18 January 2006.

Vandenberg, Lt. Gen. Hoyt. S. "Hearing before the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, First Session" on H.R. 2319, 27 June 1947.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the above...


Finished intelligence that is not published for general circulation is not routinely shared with Congress. For example, the Hill does not receive copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), prepared daily by CIA. Nor does it receive copies of the daily intelligence summaries prepared for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moreover, it does not receive "memo dissems" prepared by CIA for use by White House principals on various topics or tailored materials requested by top-level officials during their daily briefings. Occasionally, as part of an oversight investigation, intelligence committee staffers are shown portions of such tailored reporting--including the PDB--but regular access has not been accorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Headline of the Day.

He was released on parole after 7 years and served .07% of the sentence. Why is everything extreme and over the top now, wouldn't it be reasonable to just be reasonably reasonable in the first place? 

Georgia man sentenced to 1,000 years in prison for child porn gets parole

No doubt Trump is making these people go to the beach by executive order.... right?

Virus concerns grow — as do crowds flocking to Jersey Shore

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...